Movement 107

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ooks Reinvenfing the ideal lf evolution, quantum plryslcs and arttficial intelli{ence are taken for {ranted, where does that leave our images of Gad? David ltl$fns explores EVER SINCE THE lnquisition condemned Galileo, science and Chtistianity have existed in tension with each other. But in recent years we have seen many scientists and theologians claiming that the two are in fact compatible. Ihis book is in that tradition: a collection of very short essays arguing for a positive view ofthe relationship between the two disciplines. There are fifty contributors, many of them eminent British or American theologians, but their pieces are designed to be accessible to a wide readership - the kind of thing you might find in a newspaper 0r magazine. Whilst there are a few essays by people of other faiths, most of the authors are Christians, and most of those happen to be Protestants. lf you are familiar with the science-and-religion debate, you will recognise many of the authors represented here. lnterestingly, there is no orthodox contribution at all. Ihe book falls into eleven sections covering areas like creation, genetics, evolutionary biology, and the limits of science. At the start of each one, Russell Stannard gives a summary of the pieces to follow, He does not have a hard job: most 0f the essays are concerned with making one simple point. Unlike much theological writing, they are admirably concise and clear. I cannot hope to tell you about all 0f the essays, but I'll pick out a few to give a flavour of the collection. Paul Davies points outthat, accordingt0 modern physics, time came into being along with matter at the Big Bang. So asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The Christian doctrine of creation cannot mean, in Davies' words, "God pushing a metaphysical button and sitting back to watch the action"llnstead, creation is "God sustainingthe existence ofthe universe, and its laws, at all times, from a location outside of space and time". lhe lawlike nature of the universe is a better starting-p0int for dialogue between science and religion than the meaningless question of what happened before the Big Bang. Anne Foersfs article on computers in the'Personhood and the Soul'section considers what it is that makes us people ratherthan machines. ls it our use of language or our capaci$ for abstract thought? Foerst rejectsthese ideas, saying instead that it is God's creation of us (and the relationship with him that he offers us) which makes us individuals. ln that case, there is no reason why a sufficiently complex computer could not be a person. Foerst is pointingto the relevance of theological thinking in the context of computer technology. God for the 21st Century I ed, Russell Stannard I SPCK One point that crops up several times in the book is the discovery that if the universe's basic physical laws had been just slightly different then human life could not have evolved. For instance, Michael Poole reminds us that afterthe Big Bang there were only the simplest elements, hydrogen and helium. These fused together in nuclear reactions at the centre of stars to give the more complicated elements, like oxygen and carbon, from which organic life is made, "But how do stars form in the first place?" Poole asks. "Through gravity compressing a cloud of gas, and ignitingthe nuclear fusion fires.... Make gravity any weaker, and the stars will not ignite. Make it any stronger, and the stars will burn too fast, and long-lived stars like the Sun will not exist." lhe universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. Not many people like to sum up theirthoughts in a few rhetorical paragraphs, and so its unfair to judge the contributors on what they say here. But one does not get much of a sense of an ongoing engagement from which these conclusions spring' ln this respect, Stannard's earlier book, Science and Wonders, is much better, containing as it does some sceptical material from such people as Richard Dawkins, lt would be a more helpful book to use if you are looking for material to spark off a discussion. -fn .ADBY Science is a method of arriving at conclusions through A tedious proportion of the essays in this book conclude with a paragraph of radiant optimism \s".eq aR rr, 2li,' {f it ruRl trl .&tys5^-. -. r 5I4 i",, , o conjecture and experiment. ln contrastto religion, science has been enormously successful. I 26 lmovement lr
ooks concerning science's challenge to theologl. For example, Robert Herrmann's piece begins with a reminder that it was the very success of science that led to the separation of science and religion, but his final conclusion is that "science now appears to be pointing to religious faith as an equally valid source of truth". This seems to me to be a rather rosy view. The idea of compatibility occurs in many of these essays. For instance, there is the claim that, although science has no room for divine action, the idea is still compatible with science, for God acts in and through the laws of nature. (Paul Davies' redefinition ofthe doctrine of creation is another example.) But I can't help feeling that this liberal move is not quite enough of a response to science. It is clear both that the conclusions of science sometimes appearto challenge faith and that there is no need for us to have the sort 0f faith which can easily be refuted by science. Yet science is not only a set of conclusions; it is a method of arriving at them through conjecture and experiment. And, in contrastto religion, science has been enormously successful. We can now predict when eclipses will happen, make stronger and more useful materials, and understand what causes disease (as well as being able to cure rather a lot ofthem). ln contrastto religion, scientific conclusions tend t0 be agreed upon by the whole scientilic community. All of this seems to make scientific assertions more justified than religious ones. To put it another way, once we have taken religious claims away from the domain of science, as we must, it becomes unclear how we are supposed to come to know that they are true. Compared with the tested conclusions of science, religious doctrines are aptto seem arbitrary. Certainly, one can saythat regularities in nature are God acting, if one wants to. But why would anybody ever want to describe them in those terms? One way to deal with this might be to talk of the Bible, or Church tradition, or mystical experience, as an infallible source of authority about religious matters. But I do not think many of us can take this path. Anyway, until theologians can demonstrate not only how the claims of theologly are compatible with those of science but also why we might want to assert them, then science's challenge to religion will not have been answered. One of the essays in this book begins to suggest a response to this question, a response that resonates strongly with my own thoughts, As Willem Drees writes: It is unsatisfacto ry to reSard faith as though itwere merely a matter of transferring information... A /over says to the beloved, 1ou are the loveliest: and to$ether they travel in trust and love. But no investigation on Earth and beyond has been made to justify that statemenq no cosmic claim is being asserted. So too will reli!,ious language always be c,ose to our hearts. . David Liggins is currently studying philosophy at Sheffield University. He is a member of Sheffield SCM. Weighty, worw - but worth it? 0UCH! OMY S0 I'VE GOT problems with the title, these changes and in so doing shows how we (the but more about that in a moment. Christian Community) have played, and can play, Public Theologr for ChangingTimes I John Atherton I SPCK I like the book and recommend it, but (oh no, an active role in such change. Partnership and reconciliation are the "how" of this. All this happens this spells death ! ) a prior reading of An /diofs Guide to Iheo/ogy would help. lt gets a little heavy in part one. around some phrases and topics and you might After intermission (a quick reel change) to a "human person". What other kind of person do you get? What theology is there apart from public theology? Hence, its use in the title appears to be more than just a little of an orymoron. My spin. 0K, enough alreadyl I just had to get that off my chest, Before I end, I was also a little put out by the quotation from Hans Kung (the eminent German have to fake understanding these parts to finish it, but it does give some neat (UK usage, not USA usage) answers to the kind of "how do I as a Christian understand what is happening in the world?" type of question. John Atherton is Canon Theologian of Manchester Cathedral and it is in the context of that Referring lo a public theology is like trying to refer lo a human person. What theology is there apart from pu bl ic theology? city that he works out his theology. He writes: "lt is this book's purpose to establish connections between secular dnd theological in the contemporary arena." So, what's it about? ln a nutshell, it's an exploration ofthe meaning of partnership and reconciliation for, and through, an understanding of public theolo$/. lt looks at the huge changes of the past 40 years from a British and a global perspective. John Atherton examines these changes at two levels: nationally as they affect our lives, and internationally as they affect politics, the global economy, the spread of poverlry and the divisions between nations. He offers an interpretation of national levels. Now, what about the title? Well, I am unhappy with it because it appears to undermine the very substance of his text. He writes at length about partnership and reconciliation, yet his use of the expression "public theology" appears to create a dichotomy. This is my spin on it: lf we talk about "public theology" this might then imply another theology that is "private". This is the dichotomy lfear. All theology finds Creation as its context, because it is God who speaks the word and brings forth the Creation. lt is the Logos who enlivens the Created 0rder, God's "Godness" is "out there" (public) so to refer to a "public theology" is like trying to refer comes parttwo in which he works out "a code of theologian) which SPCK have put out on the back practical divinity'- meaningways in which our cover. lt reads like a personal endorsement by faith is worked out atthe local, national and inter- Kung ofthe book. lmpressive! ln fact, it is a quotation from Kung, written three years earlier, in another context about a theological process, not about this book at all. There is no doubtthatJohn Atherton writes from a wealth ofexperience and academic expertise. The material is topical, readable and challenging. lf it does nothing else - and I hope it will do lots - it will Sive you some good phrases to drop into almost any discussion aboutthe Global Community and our place and responsibility in it, Enjoy! (David Hart) movement 127
Page 1 and 2: the magazine of the student christi
Page 3 and 4: platform Conflict resolution SEXUAL
Page 5 and 6: 1 Give me my language back New dire
Page 7 and 8: NCWS VOX POPS: How did you fund you
Page 9 and 10: christian zionism who trust in Him,
Page 11 and 12: Celebrity theologian Martin Bucer (
Page 13 and 14: pressure on powerful elites, who we
Page 15 and 16: alternative worship >modern ity and
Page 17 and 18: alternative worship >MUSIC Alternat
Page 19 and 20: alternative worship I have never se
Page 21 and 22: problems So if alternative worship
Page 23 and 24: censorship being given the choice t
Page 25: atherthan alleviate oppression. Des
Page 29 and 30: magazines violations, magazines als
Page 31 and 32: the serpent * ELVIS LIVES! A strang

Movement 107

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?